Merry Christmas
Key topics
Merry Christmas to everyone. I hope you get some rest and can spend time with people who are dear to you and get to focus on what's important rather than getting lost in stressing about everything having to be perfect.
Also much love to everyone who cannot spend their Christmas with dear people.
To make sure this post meets the relevancy criteria, here is a Wikipedia article about some Christmas (more precisely advent) tradition which I personally really like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_market
As the holiday spirit swept through the community, a simple "Merry Christmas" post sparked a joyful outpouring of festive cheer, with commenters showcasing their creative coding skills to craft ASCII art Christmas trees. The thread quickly devolved into a lighthearted competition, with participants one-upping each other with increasingly elaborate tree designs, from balanced branches to string-of-lights patterns. Amidst the fun, some commenters poked fun at their own limited coding abilities, while others appreciated the creativity on display. The thread's infectious holiday warmth and playful humor made it a heartwarming celebration of the season.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
3m
Peak period
153
Day 1
Avg / period
32
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Dec 24, 2025 at 5:56 PM EST
15 days ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Dec 24, 2025 at 5:59 PM EST
3m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
153 comments in Day 1
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Jan 5, 2026 at 9:52 PM EST
2d ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
o \ o \ o \ o \ o \ o \ o \ o
[0] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AluminumChristma...
This is etched into my mind.
IDDQD = id delta quit delta (apparently some kind of inside joke)
IDSPISPOPD = id smashing pumpkins into small piles of putrid debris
Hell - mine one is crashed! Claude didnt work properly :-D
This really is a job for a LLM.
With apologies to screen reader users: "space tab space space asterisk new line space space tab space new line space space space tab pipe new line ... forward slash o full stop full stop backslash ..."
https://share.cleanshot.com/vJZv6k03 (restarting the server)
https://share.cleanshot.com/qFyM347P (online but temporarily readonly)
https://share.cleanshot.com/kW8kY7mp (back online!)
ouch
For stuff like HN, I like the peek behind the scenes it provides. It's all just software written by some humans and way too often people take themselves and their shitty software way too serious.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12183263
99% or whaever is so overated.
Or even a configuration change that some control system notices and does restart the service.
It’s the manual, hands-on connotation (maybe only in my mind) of telling someone a restart is involved. Automate this stuff - don’t want the code in the server all year? Fine, have a process rebuild and relaunch on a schedule that makes sense. Might have downtime, but definitely have less hands-on.
It only affects traffic for about 10 seconds.
Is it the convenience utilities for building and running container images?
https://freebsdfoundation.org/blog/oci-containers-on-freebsd...
However, I still can't pinpoint what the value proposition is compared to using jails. Is there anybody around here able and willing to shed some light? I know I didn't use Cunningham's Law to start the conversation like a clever netizen but maybe, just this once, a good faith response to a good faith question is possible.
Merry Christmat!
"An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
“Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”"
-Luke 2
Merry Christmas, HN!
Side note: I assume you can’t call it ASCII art if it uses non-ASCII characters, but Unicode art doesn’t have the same ring.
Also, I had to turn off firefox's enhanced tracking protection for the font to load. Before that it was unicode tofu.
Thanks
Merry Christmas!
Being a non-Christian and it being Christmas time, I am sharing one verse from the New Testament that is, in my opinion, useful - or at the very least, insightful - to anyone, regardless of religion.
Luke 16:10: He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.
Thank you for sharing. Merry Christmas to you.
There's a German term for that 'Uboot Christen' - submarine Christians. They only emerge twice a year.
Easter also not pagan. But pophistory thinks that as well. Scholarship doesn’t line up.
"Don't be snarky."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"keep the big bang until later for your children, the bible is really a great set of fairy tales"
Im not religious at all, actually "implicitly fighting against it", though I have to admit: This sentence made sense and Im thinking still until today about it, because actually I think its quite true - for smaller children, the storylines in the bible are much more "real" and understandable than the story of: "hey, there was a big bang, all molecules were created then and you are consisting today of these molecules"
Modern Christians know that religion and science can go together. Science researches _how_ something works. Religion answers _who_ created it. The Big Bang theory is actually accepted by them today.
Perhaps it's possible that the beliefs and propositions of individual members of a greater body don't always align with the official stance of the greater body.
It is, and where they depart from or twist binding doctrine, it would be a matter of heresy.
But FWIW, the Catholic Church didn’t and doesn’t have a stance on the question of heliocentrism. Why would it? It is not a question with any religious importance. Who cares which orb rotates around which? Copernicus wasn’t doing anything forbidden (nor had he vindicated heliocentrism) and had high ranking friends and acquaintances in the clergy (including cardinals like Cardinal Schõnberg and Pope Clement VII) who took an interest in his work. De Revolutionibus was itself dedicated to Pope Paul III. If anything, Copernicus was wary of other academics who held to the Ptolemaic view at the time. Plus ça change…
No doubt, you have in mind the oft-repeated Galileo affair which has become one of those stubborn black legends that seems to stay afloat despite the lack of facts supporting it because of its instrumental value for sticking it to the Church. The Galileo affair was not about heliocentrism. It was about a clash of egos and personalities (Galileo’s being of them, as he liked to pick pointless fights, including some nasty personal attacks on his friend and benefactor Urban VIII) that spanned decades. It isn’t as piquant as the story as typically told would have you believe.
> The Galileo affair was not about heliocentrism. It was about a clash of egos and personalities
Pretty much the way I heard it, outside of the Catholic Church, some 50 years ago.
It's like you're not reading my mind and yet somehow imagine you can.What part of the Bible are up for interpretation, and what parts are considered to be fact?
Contrary to the historically recent error of sola scriptura, the Bible does not interpret itself. And contrary to the modernists, it is not whatever you want it to mean.
First, what is the general nature of Scripture? It is not meant to be a scientific text. It is meant to communicate, above all, revealed truths about God that are not available to unaided reason (obviously, it also contains things we can know through unaided reason, but the unique value proposition is in what we cannot know by our own wits).
Historically, the tradition of knowledge, indeed the content of Scripture itself, preceded the biblical canon. You needed that tradition to make the determination of what is canonical and what is not. Similarly, you need that tradition to determine the nature of a given book: is a historical in structure, poetic, etc? This unbroken tradition, scholarship, literary analysis, etc. tell us the nature of a given text.
In the case of something like the creation accounts in Genesis (and there are two accounts, which differ), it is clear under such an examination that these are not scientific descriptions. They are written using the language of a pre-scientific culture. They do not tell us in scientific terms how the physical universe was formed. They do tell us that creation is ex nihilo, or out of nothing. (This is not a question of a big bang btw. The big bang is not necessary. It is a question of casuality. God as the Logos - eternal Reason - is the per se - rather than per accidens - cause of the universe’s existence, sustaining it in existence at every moment. God is not some Paley-style watchmaker arranging parts into a watch out of some primordial chaos, and the universe is not the result of some clash of opposing forces.) Genesis also tells us that there was a first human couple and that original sin can be traced to the first freely chosen immoral act. There are no binding or definitive claims about how exactly this all occurred in a historical sense. We don’t know, and as interesting as that question is [0], for the relevant purposes of the text, it doesn’t matter.
The Gospels of the New Testament, however, are very much historical in character. They are eye witness accounts of Christ’s ministry, and the canonical four were deemed to be the only reliable ones. They aren’t figurative, and the early Christians, the many witnesses of Christ’s ministry, and new evidence all align with the received and continuous tradition (indeed, one of the responsibilities of the Catholic Church is to safeguard tradition from “innovation”). Figurative interpretations of the Gospels also tend not to be compelling either, especially in light of tradition.
Obviously, biblical hermeneutics is a big topic that goes beyond an HN post. I’ve included links to a couple of texts that should introduce the material with greater depth and expertise than I can [1][2].
[0] http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-o...
[1] https://a.co/d/4xdAc9Y
[2] https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhorta...
Can you tell the fundamentalists that? Thanks
We don't know that. Some Christians believe that because they believe the Bible is univocal, which it isn't, and because they want to use other unrelated scripture like "a day for God is like a thousand years" to support a framework for Genesis which they believe is validated by current science.
But I see no reason to believe that when the ancient Hebrews wrote about creation taking seven days, that they didn't mean seven actual days.
>It was written like that, because it would be easier for people to understand.
A supposition not backed up by evidence, and one that assumes the author of Genesis had a modern understanding of astrophysics, which they did not.
> Science wasn't a thing back then. If it were written in 2025, it would obviously be very different and probably much more detailed.
OK. So as I suspected you believe that the Genesis creation story (or at least one, as there are two conflicting creation narratives) represents literal truth, but that the account itself couches this literal truth in metaphor.
I suppose that's better than the Biblical literalists who insist that Old Testament genealogies prove the world is only 10,000 years old and that therefore things like carbon dating are fake, but I do wish Christians would just accept that Genesis (along with the rest of the Bible) is entirely mythology and that they don't have to "make it fit" with modern science. It just didn't happen.
>Science researches _how_ something works. Religion answers _who_ created it.
Religion doesn't answer anything of the sort, it claims to answer it, a priori, without evidence.
And of course there are countless religions with countless such "answers." You believe only one answer is valid, again, without evidence.
This is not an opportunity for you to proselytize to me.
Just look at something like John 1:1: «In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.» Most adults aren't in a position to comprehend that, never mind a child. It is one of the most profound sentences ever uttered (those with sufficient philosophical and theological background might find this recent book on this topic of interest [0]). Or consider Exodus 3:14: «God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”». If that doesn't knock you off your feet, then you have not understood it. This is an incredibly sophisticated metaphysical statement, the meaning of which was unknown to the ancient pagans. (A good, short introduction from a philosophical angle can be found here [1].)
But more importantly, both you and the author of that article have committed a very basic category mistake. The Bible is not in the same business as the physical sciences. It doesn't answer the same questions. The Bible is not a scientific treatise, and the physical science are not a path to salvation from sin.
The Bible is also not a text of mere parables and life lessons. Indeed, this is one of those distinguishing features of Christianity that many fail to appreciate. In other religious traditions, it doesn't really matter where the truth claims come from or who said them. You could accept the claims without knowing or caring about the author. But you cannot do that with the figure of Christ. You cannot say "Oh, I accept the lessons of the New Testament, I think Jesus was a wise teacher. I just don't accept his divinity or the resurrection or the miracles or all that other stuff my bourgeois sensibilities can't stomach." Those claims that are uniquely Christian are about Christ and rooted in the authority of Christ. It is Christ who saves - a person - not knowledge, not some method, not a technology, but a person. Christ calls himself the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end of all creation, eternal, the Almighty, and the source and completion of history and salvation.
That's not just some "fun" or "cute" passage. The point is that - if Christianity is true - it is through Christ that Man's relationship to God is restored and elevated. It is through Christ that man is ennobled. Man is invited to participate in his divinity, and unlike other traditions that maintain Man can attain divinity through his own efforts alone, the Christian says "no", it is not in Man's power to do that, to pull himself up by his own bootstraps; only God can do that, and the way is by answering "yes" to his offer, by cooperating with him so he can accomplish that divinity in us. To do that, God humbled himself through the Incarnation to share in our humanity: «the Word became flesh and dwelt among us». He entered the pathology and disorder of the world to liberate it from it, to be the path out of it.
That is what Christianity teaches. That is what Christmas is about. Either that is true, or Jesus was a liar or a madman. What he wasn't was merely another "wise teacher". Either Christmas celebrates this momentous historical event of the Incarnation, or it is ridiculous.
[0] https://a.co/d/1QtQWCP
[1] https://a.co/d/bSqgkXq
For anyone interested in approaching the Bible this season, perhaps as part of a New Year's resolution, there are many wonderful free and paid resources to do so. It's easy to get bogged down in a comparison of translations and tools, or to ambitiously pick a Bible in a Year reading plan and get waylaid in the pentateuch. Instead, I'd recommend starting with the Berean Standard Bible (a modern, public domain translation with good footnotes) and Mark (Matthew is my favorite, but it starts with a genealogy and requires some Old Testament knowledge to fully enjoy.)
Here's a link: https://biblehub.com/bsb/mark/1.htm
Christus natus est
O Χριστός γεννιέται
Христос раждается
המשיח נולד
ابن الله يولد اليوم
Vrolijk Kerstmis
https://oldcompcz.github.io/jgs/joan_stark/xmas.html#treewit...
And of course, the BBS Documentary: Artscene episode:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQrBbm5ZMlo&list=PL7nj3G6Jpv...
Merry Christmas and happy new years everyone!
https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc says:
> Text after a blank line that is indented by two or more spaces is reproduced verbatim. (This is intended for code.)
I assume that's how the top level comment posted the tree which is in a <pre><code> structure.
I kinda do want to go back to oldschool bbses, with cool text-mode lightbar interfaces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Stark
I thought it was just a straggler.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes up with obfuscated C code that looks like a christmas tree and prints out wishes by the end of the day/season.
Merry Christmas!
including not the original Rolf Harris version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQVEZLcBfS8
Thanks HN for all the thoughtful comments and interesting articles.
266 more comments available on Hacker News